If it really appears I was ignoring what Dan suggested about “my” side, it may be that I simply failed to communicate well (it wouldn’t be the first time). But I don’t think it really appears that way.
Note first that Dan appeared to acknowledge a problem that “cuts both ways” just before he said “Maybe even harder the other way.” Then he said that there are no admissions of error or retractions in the ID literature despite notable errors. I replied that “it wouldn’t completely surprise me” (which is not to say that I take him entirely at his word). Doesn’t that sound like an acknowledgement of his point? Then I said that it seems ideology has infected the dialogue – dialogue involving two parties – after which I advocated a “third way.”
So to clarify, yes, I do think ideology has contaminated both sides of the debate, which obviously includes “my” side. (I say that with some hesitation, not only because I’m not 100% on board with the ID agenda myself, but because I got to hear and meet some of the leading ID spokesmen in Dallas last year and I have a lot of respect for them. Just in case any of them are reading…)
But I think your remarks ironically highlight the problem. Even if I agree, somehow you have to read disagreement into it instead. For another recent example, the uncontroversial proposition that “all proteins are made from the same set of 20 amino acids (with a few very rare exceptions)” is perfectly acceptable when your colleagues say it, but “spectacularly false” when someone from the creationist/ID crowd says it. Seems we can’t even agree on basic facts in evidence. That sort of thing makes meaningful or productive dialogue, hence the stated mission of Peaceful Science, nearly impossible.